Anthony M.J. Bull

Dr. Anthony M.J. Bull


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

30Years (1997-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 August 2012 in The Lancet
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PHPeter Howitt
Peter Howitt
ADAra Darzi
Ara Darzi
GYGuang-Zhong Yang
Guang-Zhong Yang
HAHutan Ashrafian
Hutan Ashrafian
RARifat Atun
Rifat Atun
EWElizabeth Wilson
Elizabeth Wilson

1 November 2006 in The American Journal of Sports Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
JRJames R. Robinson
James R. Robinson
ABAnthony M.J. Bull
Anthony M.J. Bull
RTRhidian R. Dew. Thomas
Rhidian R. Dew. Thomas
AAAndrew A. Amis
Andrew A. Amis
Background: The medial aspect of the knee has a complex capsular structure; the biomechanical roles of specific structures are not well understood. Hypothesis: The 3 strong stabilizing structures, the superficial and deep medial collateral ligaments and the posteromedial capsule, make distinct contributions to controlling tibiofemoral laxity. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: Changes in knee laxity under anterior-posterior drawer, valgus, and internal-external rotation loads were found by sequential cutting in 18 cadaveric knees. Three cutting sequences allowed the roles of the 3 structures to be seen in isolation and in combination. Some force contributions were also calculated. Results: The posteromedial capsule controlled valgus, internal rotation, and posterior drawer in extension, resisting 42% of a 150-N drawer force when the tibia was in internal rotation. The superficial collateral ligament controlled valgus at all angles and was dominant from 30° to 90° of flexion, plus internal rotation in flexion. The deep collateral ligament controlled tibial anterior drawer of the flexed and externally rotated knee and was a secondary restraint to valgus. Conclusion: Distinct roles in controlling tibiofemoral laxity have been found for these structures that vary according to knee flexion and tibial rotation. Clinical Relevance: The restraining functions demonstrated provide new information about knee stabilization, which may allow better evaluation of structural damage at the medial aspect of the knee.

31 May 2021 in Nature Biomedical Engineering
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
DFDario Farina
Dario Farina
IVIvan Vujaklija
Ivan Vujaklija
RBRickard Brånemark
Rickard Brånemark
ABAnthony M.J. Bull
Anthony M.J. Bull
HDHans Dietl
Hans Dietl
OAOskar C. Aszmann
Oskar C. Aszmann

1 May 2005 in Journal of Biomechanics
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
JRJames R. Robinson
James R. Robinson
ABAnthony M.J. Bull
Anthony M.J. Bull
AAAndrew A. Amis
Andrew A. Amis

14 October 2005 in Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
AAA. A. Amis
A. A. Amis
CGC. M. Gupte
C. M. Gupte
ABAnthony M.J. Bull
Anthony M.J. Bull
AEA. Edwards
A. Edwards

1 November 2006 in Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
CSChristopher D. Smith
Christopher D. Smith
SASusan Alexander
Susan Alexander
AHAdam M. Hill
Adam M. Hill
PHPol E. Huijsmans
Pol E. Huijsmans
ABAnthony M.J. Bull
Anthony M.J. Bull
AWAndrew L. Wallace
Andrew L. Wallace
Background: The optimal method for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair is not yet known. The hypothesis of the present study was that a double-row repair would demonstrate superior static and cyclic mechanical behavior when compared with a single-row repair. The specific aims were to measure gap formation at the bone-tendon interface under static creep loading and the ultimate strength and mode of failure of both methods of repair under cyclic loading. Methods: A standardized tear of the supraspinatus tendon was created in sixteen fresh cadaveric shoulders. Arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs were performed with use of either a double-row technique (eight specimens) or a single-row technique (eight specimens) with nonabsorbable sutures that were double-loaded on a titanium suture anchor. The repairs were loaded statically for one hour, and the gap formation was measured. Cyclic loading to failure was then performed. Results: Gap formation during static loading was significantly greater in the single-row group than in the double-row group (mean and standard deviation, 5.0 ± 1.2 mm compared with 3.8 ± 1.4 mm; p < 0.05). Under cyclic loading, the double-row repairs failed at a mean of 320 ± 96.9 N whereas the single-row repairs failed at a mean of 224 ± 147.9 N (p = 0.058). Three single-row repairs and three double-row repairs failed as a result of suture cut-through. Four single-row repairs and one double-row repair failed as a result of anchor or suture failure. The remaining five repairs did not fail, and a midsubstance tear of the tendon occurred. Conclusions: Although more technically demanding, the double-row technique demonstrates superior resistance to gap formation under static loading as compared with the single-row technique. Clinical Relevance: A double-row reconstruction of the supraspinatus tendon insertion may provide a more reliable construct than a single-row repair and could be used as an alternative to open reconstruction for the treatment of isolated tears.